A KITTEN that was thrown from a moving truck receives medical
care at the Polk County Animal Control facility in Winter Haven
on Wednesday. The kitten was placed in foster care.
Posted on 07/24/2008 12:51:20 PM PDT by rface
The two friends followed Arthur through a series of twists and turns off Socrum Loop Road, until he decided to turn around in the parking lot of a vacant business. That's where Pribe first saw Arthur's face, with a cigar hanging out of his mouth and wearing a dingy hat, she said.
They followed him back to U.S. 98 North, where he turned into the supply store. She parked away from the store and called 911 for a second time and waited for deputies to arrive, she said.
"Before we knew it, there were lots of police cars all over the place," she said.......
On her way to Walgreens, Denise Pribe didn't expect to see three small kittens being thrown from a truck traveling in front of her on a rural North Lakeland road.
First it was two - one was crushed by the truck's tire, she said, while the second tumbled to the side of the road, shaken. Half a mile farther down Rockridge Road, a third was thrown from the passenger window.
Pribe, along with friend Sean Reynolds, called the police and pursued the white GMC pickup, which deputies say was driven by David Carl Arthur.
Arthur, 67, of 11221 Rockridge Road in Lakeland, was arrested and charged with animal cruelty when sheriff's deputies caught up with him at Tractor Farm Supply store on U.S. 98 North.
"We weren't going to let him go," Pribe said. "We were going to keep following him."
After he was arrested, Arthur was taken to Lakeland Regional Medical Center after complaining of shortness of breath and chest pains. He is facing three counts of animal cruelty, the Sheriff's Office said.
He was expected to be booked into the Polk County Jail after being released from the hospital.
The first two kittens were thrown from the truck near Rockridge Road and Trailswood Path while going about 30 mph. Pribe said it appeared they had been thrown from the driver's side. One of the kittens was immediately run over by Arthur's truck and the second, which has not been found, is thought to have run into a wooded area, reports said.
The third kitten, which was thrown from the passenger window, was tossed near Rockridge Road and Woods Trail, bouncing onto the shoulder of the road. That kitten survived and was taken to Polk County Animal Control, officials said.
The Sheriff's Office said it received a call about 9:44 a.m. Wednesday that kittens were being thrown from a moving vehicle in North Lakeland.
Pribe and Reynolds followed Arthur closely. Pribe said Arthur knew they were tailing him because he sped up and started taking back roads.
The two friends followed Arthur through a series of twists and turns off Socrum Loop Road, until he decided to turn around in the parking lot of a vacant business. That's where Pribe first saw Arthur's face, with a cigar hanging out of his mouth and wearing a dingy hat, she said.
She wanted to yell at him, but Reynolds told her it probably wasn't the best idea while they were on the secluded back road, she said.
They followed him back to U.S. 98 North, where he turned into the supply store. She parked away from the store and called 911 for a second time and waited for deputies to arrive, she said.
"Before we knew it, there were lots of police cars all over the place," she said.
Inside the pickup, deputies found a sign that said "Free Kittens - 1 Mile," the Sheriff's Office said.
Pribe said she overheard Arthur talking to deputies, denying that he threw the kittens from the truck.
The surviving solid black kitten with blue eyes was evaluated and cleared at the county's Animal Control station Wednesday morning, said Donna Wood, a spokeswoman for the Polk County Sheriff's Office. By the end of the day, the kitten had been placed in foster care until the case is finalized.
"It doesn't look like she was seriously injured, but she is a little shook up and very scared," Wood said.
[ Jeremy Maready can be reached at jeremy.maready@theledger.com or 863-802-7592. ]
Sheesh, can’t they just drown them in a sack? (flame suit on)
He’s just doing his part to help fight global warming. Guy should be given carbon credits for his efforts.
The third kitten has been named Frisbee.
"Before we knew it, there were lots of police cars all over the place," she said.......
Why can't we get this kind of action trying to apprehend ILLEGALS!
Set the defib to high and put the pads on his nuts...
Is the net effect any different when we slaughter cows, chickens, fish, etc.? It’s all cruel, isn’t it, and they all die?
I believe we should shun people who do things we disagree with when it comes to animals, but to make it illegal is wrong. If someone hits a deer, making roadkill, as these kittens would become, then should we also not get such people for “involuntary animal slaughter?”
Animals can have no rights and they can never respect the rights of others.
Poor kitties. I hope the judge sends this jerk to prison for 50 years.
Poor kitties.
Maybe I'll just kick this guy in the nuts and see if a jury convicts me.....
In my world - There is no place for cuelty for the sake of cruelty. In my world - There is a place for killing for food. In my world - there is a place for kicking a guy in the nuts for throwing kittens from a truck window.
VERDICT: Not Guilty ... the guy deserved to get kicked in the nuts.
I knew that kitten home deivery service wouldn’t catch on.
If they were kittens, they are about as aware as a cockroach.
The net effect when you randomly shoot someone in the head for no reason is the same as when you shoot someone in the head in an act of legitimate self-defense: there is someone shot in the head.
The intent makes one action right and the other wrong.
I believe we should shun people who do things we disagree with when it comes to animals, but to make it illegal is wrong.
Why? What is the underlying reasoning to this blanket assertion?
If someone hits a deer, making roadkill, as these kittens would become, then should we also not get such people for “involuntary animal slaughter?”
That's laughably silly for two reasons:
(1) You would not be charged with involuntary manslaughter if someone threw a human child under your wheels before you could stop. There is no culpability on your part but on the part of the thrower.
(2) The life of an animal has value but not as much value as a human being. Your argument is basically that animals should be treated either as full equals of human beings or as completely inanimate objects. That's a false dichotomy.
Animals can have no rights and they can never respect the rights of others.
The trucker is not being charged on civil rights grounds. No imagined right of any animal is being asserted here.
If he didn’t want the kittens, he should have taken them to the pound where they could have been adopted or put to sleep humanely. I wouldn’t even object if he humanely killed them himself. I DO object to him throwing them from a car. It is needlessly cruel. At a minimum, I don’t want this pond scum owning another animal.
That doesn’t make sense.
My BIL recently called 911 as some guy was literally swerving from one side of the road to the other while driving and the "person" on the other end said "we'll probably never catch them sir", suggesting it wasn't even worth the effort. I guess it doesn't help there budget for the coming year so why bother...
If We The People make laws that say animals have rights,and we have, then animals have rights. Don't like it, get yourself elected and get the law changed.
Beyond that, what the hell is the matter with you?
Concerned about global warming?
No, it's not all cruel. When food animals are slaughtered, the process is usually a quick death process that does not deliberately inflict pain for the sake of inflicting pain. Furthermore, the food animals are raised for the purpose of being killed for food.
If someone hits an animal making it roadkill, that is usually an accident rather than a deliberate act of cruelty.
Animal cruelty is a crime -- not because animals have rights but because laws have been established against cruelty to animals.
If the animals are considered his “property,” then what law is he being tried under?
A plant has value, too. A tree can cost thousands and provides the world with O2 and shelter, while sequestering carbon. So, animals and plants do have value, I'll agree. But they are “value” each of us can choose to squander if we see fit to do so.
If we can eat animals, then killing our own animals must be okay.
Then what makes a “pet” any different than a animal used for food?
If animals had rights, cows would rule the country.
So, if we killed humans for meat, it would be okay, but for other reasons, it wouldn’t?
I guess some just tend to sympathize with total retard, nuttless wonders who are cruel to animals; or is it empathy?
Such an idiotic argument makes sense only if you believe humans are on the same level as other animals.
Killing your own animal is ok. Beating it to death with a baseball bat is NOT ok. Throwing it from a moving car is NOT ok.
This is changing. Plants are also being granted rights. None of them so far have formally recognized the rights of others.
They can toss those little punks in my yard anytime.
Poor kitties.
[WARNING: The animal-cruelty lovers have found this thread.]
Arthur needs to be thrown from the truck by his “tail.”
Animal cruelty threads = troll magnets.
Just plan sick what that person in the news story did to those kittens. =^..^=
Yep and everytime there is an animal cruelity story, those same fools show up. Article is also bookmarked for latter reading. =^..^=
LOL!
I hope the offender gets the book thrown at him.
Get a rope.
If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let you do it.
You should be arrested for cruelty to logic and rationality.
Grow up and get a life!
I've known A number of exceptions to that rule.
No, actually, they don't. You can close your eyes and scream and kick like we did as kids, but that doesn't change the fact that they do not have rights. You can want them to, and you can be mad about some evil moron who does something like this, but that does not mean that a violation of rights has occurred. Let's not allow emotion to further desecrate our legal underpinnings.
Of the many shortcomings in our educational system, one of the most insidious is that the majority of even a well-educated group like FReepers would be hard-pressed to come up with a consistent and workable definition of what a "right" actually is. The Constitution does not define what a "right" is, nor does it delineate all of our rights. (It merely recognizes a small number of our rights which our government must recognize.)
Put his face on national TV in saturation advertising for two weeks, then let him go.
It's cheaper and, somehow, more just.
“So, animals and plants do have value, I’ll agree. But they are “value” each of us can choose to squander if we see fit to do so.”
Apparently not because he was arrested and hopefully go to prison. You may think that, but the law says something different.
What a horrible thing to do. Someone should throw him out of a plane. How cruel :-(
Generally; members of western culture will buy animal products made by animals that have been humanely slaughtered. Even hunters prefer to make a clean kill.
This has nothing to do with "animal rights." It's about humans not acting like animals.
However, most serial killers have been known to maltreat animals.
“Killing your own animal is ok. Beating it to death with a baseball bat is NOT ok. Throwing it from a moving car is NOT ok.”
Okay, so killing your own animal is okay. Why does the manner in which you kill it matter? It’s still just as dead.
You are truly inconsistent.
Cruelity and neglect is NEVER OK, PERIOD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.